NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work

Because people are stupid.

Easy - people have the choice to sleep around or not, as well as the choice to be judgemental. Why would it be desireable if the government takes such choices away ?

Aside: the examples you mentioned are not exclusively limited to promiscuity.

Restricting abortion and the morning-after pill don't discourage promiscuity.

As long as people use contraception, I don't see why society needs to stop them being promiscuous. I don't want to be promiscuous, but not everyone has to be like me.

Easy - people have the choice to sleep around or not, as well as the choice to be judgemental. Why would it be desireable if the government takes such choices away ?


Because the job of a democracy is to do what the public want. As far as I can see the public oppose promiscuity (hence the social reaction) so why is it so bad to impose regulations that make it harder.

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work

Well for me I have no problem socially or politically. It is their life and they can do what they wish. Plus I doubt many men under 40 will be annoyed at a promiscous person, when it is a woman they think it is cool, within their mind they have no problem with a girl who wouldn't leave all the work to the man, and if it is a man there is a certain reverence for someone who oviously is doing something right.

Because the job of a democracy is to do what the public want. As far as I can see the public oppose promiscuity (hence the social reaction) so why is it so bad to impose regulations that make it harder.

Fortunately there are no democracies on this planet.

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work
That's an easy one: because people are human. Just to take an example, how many people do you know, men and women, who have claimed that "I didn't set out to have sex, it just happened?" I must know hundreds. What happens is that the human animal is so sexed that people's good intentions are very often overwhelmed by their desire to do the pelvic thrust thang.

Because the job of a democracy is to do what the public want. As far as I can see the public oppose promiscuity (hence the social reaction) so why is it so bad to impose regulations that make it harder.

So if the public want a return to slavery should we let them have it? The majority do not have the right to strip away the rights of the minority without good reason.

Fortunately there are no democracies on this planet.
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Name one then. It can have no constitution, nor work as a republic.

Because the job of a democracy is to do what the public want. As far as I can see the public oppose promiscuity (hence the social reaction) so why is it so bad to impose regulations that make it harder.
Proof please. People like sex.

Name one then. It can have no constitution, nor work as a republic.
I don't want to get into this. I knew that's what you meant ... that there are no "pure" democracies. I just thought it was a bit ... um ... disengenuous. :p

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work

Because unwanted pregnancies are a greater problem than promiscuity.

Oddly enough, most of the people who are against birth control are against abortion. Bit of hypocrisy there too.

So if the public want a return to slavery should we let them have it? The majority do not have the right to strip away the rights of the minority without good reason.
Not to mention that it's fairly obvious that the majority of Americans not only want to have sex, but DO ... repeatedly!

Proof please. People like sex.

People like sex yes, but not too much. IE sluts. Its a social thing. People look down on people who sleep around without a care at all.

Because unwanted pregnancies are a greater problem than promiscuity.

Oddly enough, most of the people who are against birth control are against abortion. Bit of hypocrisy there too.
In their eyes, it's a very consistent set of positions. What really, really bothers me is those who oppose both birth control and abortion, and have the capability to adopt ... and don't. Now to me, that's true hypocrisy! To these people: If you're not willing to help with the results of your own idiocy, then STFU!

Not to mention that it's fairly obvious that the majority of Americans not only want to have sex, but DO ... repeatedly!

As is evidenced by the continued existence of Americans.

*nods sagely*

As is evidenced by the continued existence of Americans.

*nods sagely*
ROFLMAO!!! Duh!

I was wondering where all these people came from during my 62 short years here! :D

Oddly enough, most of the people who are against birth control are against abortion. Bit of hypocrisy there too.

Personally, I have no problem with preventative birth control. But have a larger problem with reactive birth control (IE the morning after pill)

Personally, I have no problem with preventative birth control. But have a larger problem with reactive birth control (IE the morning after pill)
Why, pray tell??

As long as people use contraception, I don't see why society needs to stop them being promiscuous. I don't want to be promiscuous, but not everyone has to be like me.

So, you wouldn't mind if you developed HIV/AIDS because most people became freely promiscuous and HIV/AIDS spread worldwide?

Keep in mind that condoms, while highly effective, only need to fail once to practically ensure death in the case of HIV/AIDS...

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work
Um, that's an easy one to answer: Your premise is completely skewed.

For one, I'm confused about your definition of "promiscuity". Is it people who have random one-night stands 7 nights a week? Or is it anybody having sex before marriage? I fall into neither category, like, I suspect, most other people do, too.

For another, whatever makes you think that
1) "restricting the morning after pill & other contraceptives & opposing abortion" would curb "promiscuity"?
2) "restricting the morning after pill & other contraceptives & opposing abortion" is even intended to curb "promiscuity"?
(well, on that second one I guess I have to give you that the American Christian Right most certainly has exactly that intention).

Opposing contraceptives, for one, is about the most irresponsible thing anybody could advocate. In your vein of thinking, do you really think all those "sluts" would care one iota if they have a rubber or not, seeing how "immoral" they are anyway? Seriously, though, people won't stop having sex just because some religious or political authority tells them to.

And opposing abortion in order to curb promiscuity is about the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. (Also, you do know that married women have abortions, too, right?)

People like sex yes, but not too much. IE sluts. Its a social thing. People look down on people who sleep around without a care at all.

Speak for yourself. Do not attempt to claim you have any clue of what "people" want, since you seem so far detached from mainstream thought, it's quite hilarious to see you try to speak for it.

So, you wouldn't mind if ... HIV/AIDS spread worldwide?
Uh ... news flash: it already has. :(

Opposing contraceptives, for one, is about the most irresponsible thing anybody could advocate. And opposing abortion in order to curb promiscuity is about the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

Seconded.

Speak for yourself. Do not attempt to claim you have any clue of what "people" want, since you seem so far detached from mainstream thought, it's quite hilarious to see you try to speak for it.
Good morning, Fass! ( Or at least it is here )

Define "mainstream thought" for us, would you please? I've always wondered where that was located. :)

Uh ... news flash: it already has. :(

And the thing shown most effective in curbing its spread? Safer sex. Not "abstinence," which is a miserable failure, since people just simply aren't abstinent, and are never going to be, no matter how many Bibles one thumps.

Uh ... news flash: it already has. :(

I am aware that AIDS is already shockingly widespread, but I don't see why that means that we should encourage promiscuity. It seems like the opposite is what we need.

Personally, I have no problem with preventative birth control. But have a larger problem with reactive birth control (IE the morning after pill)

Approximately 3 out of 4 fertilized eggs that a woman and man produce don't adhere to the uterine wall and the cluster of cells is flushed from the body during her period. So every woman is a serial killer. :p

All the Morning After pill does is increases the ratio to 4 out of 4. I don't really see the problem with that.

So, you wouldn't mind if you developed HIV/AIDS because most people became freely promiscuous and HIV/AIDS spread worldwide?

Keep in mind that condoms, while highly effective, only need to fail once to practically ensure death in the case of HIV/AIDS...

NEWSFLASH!!!

Being born completely guarantees death! Enjoy the rest of your life. :)

Good morning, Fass! ( Or at least it is here )

Good evening.

Define "mainstream thought" for us, would you please? I've always wondered where that was located. :)

I can't define it any better than he can, but I know enough about it to call BS on his claims to be speaking for it.

I am aware that AIDS is already shockingly widespread, but I don't see why that means that we should encourage promiscuity. It seems like the opposite is what we need.

Death seems like a steep price to pay for sleeping around. :p

People like sex yes, but not too much. IE sluts. Its a social thing. People look down on people who sleep around without a care at all.
I want proof that most people believe promiscuity should be legally regulated. Now, you're either talking out of your ass, or you have some source that I don't know about. I would like to see that source.

So, you wouldn't mind if you developed HIV/AIDS because most people became freely promiscuous and HIV/AIDS spread worldwide?

Keep in mind that condoms, while highly effective, only need to fail once to practically ensure death in the case of HIV/AIDS...
That's why I put in that part. I have a problem - a legal and social problem - with people who carelessly spread around STDs.

limiting access to contraception and abortion doesnt stop promiscuity and never has. besides it also "punishes" those who are not sexually over active but need those services. its not like the clerk at the store is going to ask you how many sex partners you had in the past month before selling you the morning after pill.

and are you SURE that wouldnt be you real motive? to act to punish those who others might agree behave badly but really get the restrictions on certain products and services that you find objectionable no matter WHO uses them?

its not really the governments business to regulate our private lives, especially when talking about legal activities. the more private the activity, the less the govt should be involved in it.

And the thing shown most effective in curbing its spread? Safer sex. Not "abstinence," which is a miserable failure, since people just simply aren't abstinent, and are never going to be, no matter how many Bibles one thumps.
Very true. :)

And the thing showed most effective in curbing its spread? Safer sex. Not "abstinence," which is a miserable failure, since people just simply aren't abstinent, and are never going to be, no matter how many Bibles one thumps.

You can't measure how much people aren't having sex, so you cannot compare abstinence and safe sex.

Condoms, while highly effective, only need to fail once to practically ensure death in the case of HIV/AIDS. If you abstain from sex, don't share needles, and health organizations do their part to make sure that HIV isn't spread through blood transfusions, you will not get AIDS. Interestingly enough, you'll also help the overpopulation problem. :cool:

I can't define it any better than he can, but I know enough about it to call BS on his claims to be speaking for it.
Oh? Care to share how you came by this somewhat ... esoteric knowledge?

Death seems like a steep price to pay for sleeping around. :p

Yep, reality sucks big time.

(Yep means Sex in Russian)

the more private the activity, the less the govt should be involved in it.
[ Privately makes his very private IEDs in his very, very private laboratory ] Mwahahahaha! :D

You can't measure how much people aren't having sex, so you cannot compare abstinence and safe sex.

You can. Safer sex is doable and realistic, abstinence is not.

Condoms, while highly effective, only need to fail once to practically ensure death in the case of HIV/AIDS.

Abstinence only needs to fail once, as well.

If you abstain from sex, don't share needles, and health organizations do their part to make sure that HIV isn't spread through blood transfusions, you will not get AIDS. Interestingly enough, you'll also help the overpopulation problem. :cool:

And if you catch a leprechaun he will lead you to his crock of gold. It's as realistic as abstinence working.

NEWSFLASH!!!

Being born completely guarantees death! Enjoy the rest of your life. :)

Lol, that's an interesting way to look at it :)

NEWSFLASH!!!

Being born completely guarantees death! Enjoy the rest of your life. :)
OMG! [ checks calendar ] [ weeps ] :p

Oh? Care to share how you came by this somewhat ... esoteric knowledge?

Oh, by speaking to "people" and seeing that they do not seem to be the kind of group anyone can speak for.

Abstinence only needs to fail once, as well.

Individuals can personally control when/if abstinence fails (except in cases of the horror known as rape). Individuals cannot personally control when a condom fails.



And if you catch a leprichaun he will lead you to his crock of gold. It's as realistic as abstinence working.

Then I'm a Leprechaun. I'd lead you to my crock of gold, but I'm abstinent ;)

Oh, by speaking to "people" and seeing that they do not seem to be the kind of group anyone can speak for.
And your sample size?

NEWSFLASH!!!

Being born completely guarantees death! Enjoy the rest of your life. :)

Like hell! I intend to get out of life alive! :)

Why, pray tell??

Well because preventative birth control doesnt destroy a feotus intentionally. While some die naturally that is sad but unpreventable.

And your sample size?

You are asking me for a sample size of "people" I just said I could not speak for? Do you, like, know anything about statistics?

You can't measure how much people aren't having sex, so you cannot compare abstinence and safe sex.

Condoms, while highly effective, only need to fail once to practically ensure death in the case of HIV/AIDS. If you abstain from sex, don't share needles, and health organizations do their part to make sure that HIV isn't spread through blood transfusions, you will not get AIDS. Interestingly enough, you'll also help the overpopulation problem. :cool:
the trouble isnt with the concept, its with reality

people arent abstinent. they have NEVER been abstinent. they never will be abstinent.

our best bet is to make sex SAFER rather than rely on people to think carefully when aroused.

Individuals can personally control when/if abstinence fails (except in cases of the horror known as rape). Individuals cannot personally control when a condom fails.

Only that condoms are a lot more reliable, and stronger, than people are. Condoms breaking is physics - people not being abstinent is human.

Then I'm a Leprechaun. I'd lead you to my crock of gold, but I'm abstinent ;)

How old are you?

You can. Safer sex is doable and realistic, abstinence is not.

"Doable and realistic?"

Segregation in the USA was "doable and realistic", integration was "not".
Appeasement against Hitler was "doable and realistic", preventing him from invading a variety of countries was "not".
Feeding starving nations is "doable and realistic", controlling global population growth is "not".
Invading Iraq for oil, although no one dare say it, was the "doable and realistic" solution to the oil crisis. Alternative forms of energy and better fuel effeciency are "not".

"Doable and realistic" is a way of saying that you know what is best, but you don't want to try to do it, because it would actually require effort.

What condoms do is delay the inevitable. Eventually, when the problem reaches a breaking point, most people will finally realized that abstinence is a good idea. What I am trying to do is to get that point across before things get significantly worse.

Ashmoria, I hope you read this post as well. I don't want to have to type it all again... :p

OMG! [ checks calendar ] [ weeps ] :p
you have 20 more years. quit crying and get to them!

How old are you?

Are you suggesting that because I am not dead yet, I will fail to be abstinent sometime before I die?

Segregation in the USA was "doable and realistic", integration was "not".
Appeasement against Hitler was "doable and realistic", preventing him from invading a variety of countries was "not".
Feeding starving nations is "doable and realistic", controlling global population growth is "not".
Invading Iraq for oil, although no one dare say it, was the "doable and realistic" solution to the oil crisis. Alternative forms of energy and better fuel effeciency are "not".

"Doable and realistic" is a way of saying that you know what is best, but you don't want to try to do it, because it would actually require effort.

Were these analogies meant to be this flawed, or did you really think they were on point?

What condoms do is delay the inevitable. Eventually, when the problem reaches a breaking point, most people will finally realized that abstinence is a good idea. What I am trying to do is to get that point across before things get significantly worse.

Things aren't getting significantly worse in the countries where safer sex has high penetration. In Sweden, we have around maybe 5000 people infected with HIV. Out of 9000000. A stable figure. Safer sex works. Abstinence doesn't because people are simply not abstinent. Your abstinence claim is like saying "hmm, the best way to get over that chasm is to grow wings and fly over it." What's "best" is not what works in reality, or is going to happen.

Are you suggesting that because I am not dead yet, I will obviously fail to be abstinent sometime before I die?

You seem rather naive old chum. Abstinence looks good on paper, but it just isn't workable in real life. Oh, sure, you might get it to work throughout the Western countries if you took over the government and forced it to happen, but even then you'd have dissenters - people like their freedom. But in countries like Africa and poorer, third-world countries, sex is something that goes on despite the efforts of aid workers, charity workers and even the UN. There are some places that abstinence will never work, as the cultural background isn't present.

Are you suggesting that because I am not dead yet, I will fail to be abstinent sometime before I die?

I was alluding to the fact that most often people who have fallen for abstinence propaganda in such a way as you are teens who aren't getting any, and know very little about sex and how many people have it, and how they themselves will not stay abstinent for very long in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Were these analogies meant to be this flawed, or did you really think they were on point?

I threw the list together in 30 seconds. The least you can do is take 30 seconds to point out the flaws instead of merely suggesting that they exist without providing evidence.



Things aren't getting significatly worse in the countries where safer sex has high penetration. In Sweden, we have around maybe 5000 people infected with HIV. Out of 9000000. A stable figure. Safer sex works. Abstinence doesn't because people are simply not abstinent. Your abstinence claim is like saying "hmm, the best way to get over that chasm is to grow wings and fly over it." What's "best" is not what works in reality, or is going to happen.

On of the primary reasons for the ineffeciency of abstinence is people giving up because people tell them that is "impossible."

It is possible, but it rarely works if you don't think it will work. It is called confidence in your own free will. No one is a slave to their sexuality.

I threw the list together in 30 seconds. The least you can do is take 30 seconds to point out the flaws instead of merely suggesting that they exist without providing evidence.





On of the primary reasons for the ineffeciency of abstinence is people giving up because people tell them that is "impossible."

Actually I think it might be because many people like having sexual relations with other people, as it is part of a loving relationship (At times), and many people just have fun doing it. They also don't like being told not to do it, which is what you suggest doing. Safe sex is far more realistic.

There are some places that abstinence will never work, as the cultural background isn't present.

Will never work? That's a very strong statement. You are aware that cultures change over time, correct?

I threw the list together in 30 seconds. The least you can do is take 30 seconds to point out the flaws instead of merely suggesting that they exist without providing evidence.

They were so ludicrously off-topic, and so poorly constructed in their not having anything to do with the matter at hand, or being in any way comparable to what we're talking about, that picking them apart would have been an even bigger waste of time than reading them was.

On of the primary reasons for the ineffeciency of abstinence is people giving up because people tell them that is "impossible."

No, abstinence is impossible. That's why it fails. Not because I point out that it fails.

Safe sex is far more realistic.

"Realistic" does not mean the same thing as "of a solution". Safe sex is a delaying mechanism. Abstinence is the solution.

They were so ludicrously off-topic, and so poorly constructed in their not having anything to do with the matter at hand, or being in any way comparable to what we're talking about, that picking them apart would have been an even bigger waste of time than reading them was.

I insist. This is a debate. In a debate, it is customary to refute the points of your opponent, as opposed to ignoring/dismissing them.

No, abstinence is impossible. That's why it fails. Not because I point out that it fails.

Are you suggesting that no one has never not had sex in their life?

It is not totally impossible. Everyone can live a life without sex. The trick is getting everyone to do it.

"Realistic" does not mean the same thing as "of a solution". Safe sex is a delaying mechanism. Abstinence is the solution.

No, it's impossible. Read my earlier posts. People like to have sexual relations, and there are cultures where abstinence is impossible to promote despite many attempts to.

"Realistic" does not mean the same thing as "of a solution". Safe sex is a delaying mechanism.

Nope. It's a halting mechanism. And in the long run, an eradicating mechanism.

Abstinence is the solution.

"Solutions" that no one uses are not solutions.

You seem rather naive old chum. Abstinence looks good on paper, but it just isn't workable in real life. Oh, sure, you might get it to work throughout the Western countries if you took over the government and forced it to happen, but even then you'd have dissenters - people like their freedom. But in countries like Africa and poorer, third-world countries, sex is something that goes on despite the efforts of aid workers, charity workers and even the UN. There are some places that abstinence will never work, as the cultural background isn't present.

Are you intentionally ignoring Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere? Abstinence is "workable" for the women there; the West isn't the only place with a cultural background of abstinence, as you put it.

I think the point here is that it is POSSIBLE to be abstinent. Certainly trying to force others to be abstinent will not stop promiscuous sex, or sex in any circumstances, but some people can and will remain abstinent until marriage or otherwise.

I insist. This is a debate. In a debate, it is customary to refute the points of your opponent, as opposed to ignoring/dismissing them.

I am dismissing your analogies, because they are so far out there, that I am not going to waste my time refuting something that is already refuted on its own. Really, if your "argument" here is to throw out some cockamamie analogies and demand that someone pick them apart, you are far from a "debate" worthy adversary.

I think the point here is that it is POSSIBLE to be abstinent. Certainly trying to force others to be abstinent will not stop promiscuous sex, or sex in any circumstances, but some people can and will remain abstinent until marriage or otherwise.

Agreed. And the more people that can be convinced that abstinence is the solution, the better off we will be.

"Solutions" that no one uses are not solutions.

I use it.

I am dismissing your analogies, because they are so far out there, that I am not going to waste my time refuting something that is already refuted on its own. Really, if your "argument" here is to throw out some cockamamie analogies and demand that someone pick them apart, you are far from a "debate" worthy adversary.

If it is so easy to pick apart my analogies, why don't you just do it to shut me up?

All your insistence that they are ridiculous means nothing without a supporting argument.

On of the primary reasons for the ineffeciency of abstinence is people giving up because people tell them that is "impossible."

It is possible, but it rarely works if you don't think it will work. It is called confidence in your own free will. No one is a slave to their sexuality.
you cant use yourself as an example of how abstinence is possible unless you have faced significant temptation and kept your pants on. when you are .... 50 and have never had unwise sex, you can use yourself as a shining example.

not that anyone will admire you for it.

if "promiscuity" were a recent phenomenon then advocating abstinence would make good sense. its just not the case. people have NEVER EVER been abstinent. as a group. that there are people here and there who are either not interested, didnt have good opportutnity, or have some sort of iron discipline doesnt alter the part where the vast majority of humans arent abstinent

its not like aids is the only reason to abstain. in the past "good moral upstanding" people have railed agaisnt the poor for having too many children, meaning too much sex. this sefrighteousness never stopped a poor couple from having sex. and it never will. people have sex. its not going to stop. today poor families are smaller not because they "smarted up" and stopped having sex but because they have access to cheap and effective birth control.

now dont get me wrong, its fine with me that the government suggest to underaged teens that they delay being sexually active until they are adults who are able to handle having responsible sex. that approach has even worked. sex and pregnancy has declined in highschool students in the past 15 years. (perhaps because of the rise in oral sex in teens that they dont report as sex)

but to think that you can stop adults from having sex whenever they choose is very naive. safe sex is the way to go.

Are you intentionally ignoring Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere? Abstinence is "workable" for the women there; the West isn't the only place with a cultural background of abstinence, as you put it.

I think the point here is that it is POSSIBLE to be abstinent. Certainly trying to force others to be abstinent will not stop promiscuous sex, or sex in any circumstances, but some people can and will remain abstinent until marriage or otherwise.

Intentionally ignoring? No. I'm fully aware of the abstinence in many Muslim countries, and that it works for many. I am saying, however, that in many Western countries it could not work, and in many African and third-world countries it cannot work despite attempts. I also never said the West had a cultural background of abstinence; reread my post.

Yes, Abstinence is possible, I never said it wasn't, but it isn't possible for 100% of the world's population. Many religious countries, such as the Middle Eastern countries conduct abstinence, but what about more atheist countries in Europe, or people who just like having sex? Safe sex is much more realistic, because 100% of the worlds population will never consent to abstinence, thus making it rather pointless.

Are you intentionally ignoring Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere? Abstinence is "workable" for the women there; the West isn't the only place with a cultural background of abstinence, as you put it.

It's only "workable" because they are shackled and opressed and basically unfree, living in totalitarian societies where so little as someone suspecting they have talked to the wrong man can get them killed.

Oh, and Islam is pretty tolerant of contraceptives. The cultures these women live in are however not very tolerant of women being free.

I think the point here is that it is POSSIBLE to be abstinent. Certainly trying to force others to be abstinent will not stop promiscuous sex, or sex in any circumstances, but some people can and will remain abstinent until marriage or otherwise.

And those people are so few, they're negligable and insufficient to leave even a speck, let alone a dent, on an epidemic of this sort. Abstinence is impossible for most people.

If it is so easy to pick apart my analogies, why don't you just do it to shut me up?

I'm not going to waste my time on something so off-topic and irrelevant.

I use it.

Again: How old are you?

And when are you going to stop being abstinent? At marriage? What guarantees fidelity? And what about gay people who cannot get married? What then?

Are you intentionally ignoring Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere? Abstinence is "workable" for the women there; the West isn't the only place with a cultural background of abstinence, as you put it.

I think the point here is that it is POSSIBLE to be abstinent. Certainly trying to force others to be abstinent will not stop promiscuous sex, or sex in any circumstances, but some people can and will remain abstinent until marriage or otherwise.
are you sure that the men in those countries are abstinent? female abstinence is meaningless unless the men are also abstaining.

Agreed. And the more people that can be convinced that abstinence is the solution, the better off we will be.

I use it.

I want sex.

Again: How old are you?

Why does it matter?

Can you name one person on the planet who cannot resist having sex constantly (in a literal sense)?

Now, can you name one person who can not resist having sex for 30 seconds?

How about 5 minutes?

Half an hour?

A day?

What about a week?

... a year?

... a lifetime?


If anyone can resist having sex for 5 seconds, then anyone can resist having sex for an eternity. Think of it as a chain of 5 second periods in which they do not have sex.

And if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it. Think of it as a series of individuals.


Abstinence is possible. It may not be feasible, but it is certainly possible.

And when are you going to stop being abstinent? At marriage? What guarantees fidelity? And what about gay people who cannot get married? What then?

Currently, I plan on being a Catholic Priest, so never.

If I do end up being married, then yes, I plan on stopping abstinence at marriage (as long as it is ok with my spouse). I cannot guarantee fidelity on my spouse's part (except to say that it is possible for anyone to be abstinent), but the same determination that kept me abstinent before marriage will serve to keep me faithful during marriage.

As far as gay people, even if they can't get married, they can still form single-partnered, faithful and trusting relationships, correct?

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work

The decision to avoid promiscuity is only meaningful if you aren't doing it simply to comply with some law. You can't make people more moral with laws; they must do it themselves with their own choices.

So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it.

It's much like how it's socially unacceptable to say, "Fuck fuckitty fuck fuck fuck a clown! Now where's my bloody clown pants, you cunts?" most of the time, but for a government to ban that or "discourage" that by taking "measures" against it, it opposes the concept of freedom.

So yeah, it's not the government's job to enforce all social customs - certainly not at the cost of freedom.

It's not hypocrisy at all.

Actually I think it might be because many people like having sexual relations with other people, as it is part of a loving relationship (At times), and many people just have fun doing it. They also don't like being told not to do it, which is what you suggest doing. Safe sex is far more realistic.

Seriously, it's possible. I still haven't "done it", and I'm 20 now. I plan on not doing it until I marry. And I won't, because that is one of my convictions.

Seriously, it's possible. I still haven't "done it", and I'm 20 now. I plan on not doing it until I marry. And I won't, because that is one of my convictions.

Good for you, I respect you for that. However, I do not live by those same standards, and do not want to remain in abstinence when I finally meet a girl I want to be with. Condoms and the pill is my option.

Why does it matter?

It matters because kids who are abstinent aren't exactly accomplishers.

Can you name one person on the planet who cannot resist having sex constantly (in a literal sense)?
Now, can you name one person who can not resist having sex for 30 seconds?
How about 5 minutes?
Half an hour?
A day?
What about a week?
... a year?
... a lifetime?
If anyone can resist having sex for 5 seconds, then anyone can resist having sex for an eternity. Think of it as a chain of 5 second periods in which they do not have sex.

Can you name someone who can resist eating for five seconds? 5 mins? Half an hour? A day? A week? A year? A lifetime? Just think of it as a series of 5 second periods where they don't eat.

See, how ridiculous your little example is? Just because you can resist something for a shorter while, does not mean that you can, or that you will, do so for longer.

And if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it. Think of it as a series of individuals.

Think of it as a series of anorexics.

Abstinence is possible. It may not be feasible, but it is certainly possible.

And here in reality, we look for solutions that are feasible. Something that isn't feasible is worthless, and impossible to implement.

Currently, I plan on being a Catholic Priest, so never.

Oh, that explains it. Because the Catholic Church has such a good record on denying human nature by forcing a pathological abstinence on its priests.

If I do end up being married, then yes, I plan on stopping abstinence at marriage (as long as it is ok with my spouse). I cannot guarantee fidelity on my spouse's part (except to say that it is possible for anyone to be abstinent), but the same determination that kept me abstinent before marriage will serve to keep me faithful during marriage.

Good luck with that. Reality speaks against you.

As far as gay people, even if they can't get married, they can still form single-partnered, faithful and trusting relationships, correct?

And why should this stop people from using condoms for the times they are not? Remember, your church extols the virtues of marriage, but then denies them to gay people, who are not only barred from that, but then you want to bar them from condoms. The Catholic Church is pretty much driving people to have unsafe sex.

On of the primary reasons for the ineffeciency of abstinence is people giving up because people tell them that is "impossible."

It is possible, but it rarely works if you don't think it will work. It is called confidence in your own free will. No one is a slave to their sexuality.
Abstinence works on a personal level, but when you try to force it, or even encourage it on a societal level, it tends not to work.

Are you suggesting that no one has never not had sex in their life?

It is not totally impossible. Everyone can live a life without sex. The trick is getting everyone to do it.
Celibates are a very small minority, and they are mostly celibate by choice, not because any power is telling them to be celibate.

Getting everyone to be abstinent for life is neither practical nor desireable. Few people are able to resist the desire for their entire lives. Also, people should have sex because they need to reproduce.

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity... On a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work
I'm sorry. Could you run that by me again? How exactly does that work?
A women who's been raped and asks for a morning after pill is encouraging promuscuity?
A couple who can't afford to raise a child so uses condoms encourages promuscuity?
My next door neighbours who have been married for two years and who use condoms but one breaks and so need to buy a morning after pill is going to make me want to go out and fuck anything and everything?

Nope. I just don't quite see the connection there.

You know, abstinence may indeed be the best solution, but is anyone else here aware of the fact that in high schools were "abstinence only" sex ed. is taught, there's actually been a rise in teen pregnancies?

Or what about the fact that, in one of these states, there was a rise in teenagers saying they had oral and/or anal sex?

You can tell kids that abstinence is the best way to go, but you also need to teach them about safe sex. The sex drive is one of the most powerful in the human body. If one of these kids has sex even just once, and doesn't know about condoms, they run a very big risk. This is why they need to be taught.

And the morning after pill does not terminate a fetus. Technically, It's still just a bundle of cells, if that. Saying the morning after pill terminates a fetus shows a lack of knowledge about how the human body works and develops.

It is not totally impossible. Everyone can live a life without sex. The trick is getting everyone to do it.

Only if said species was interested in self extinction. Now you've revealed your true goals. The extinction of mankind via abstinence. You nefarious fiend :p

Are you intentionally ignoring Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere? Abstinence is "workable" for the women there; the West isn't the only place with a cultural background of abstinence, as you put it.

I think the point here is that it is POSSIBLE to be abstinent. Certainly trying to force others to be abstinent will not stop promiscuous sex, or sex in any circumstances, but some people can and will remain abstinent until marriage or otherwise.

How convenient that you pretend things like rape, sex out of wedlock, rape punishments (e.g. rural areas in Pakistan) and extra-marital relations don't exist in said countries. If you think they don't, you need to go read up more news.

Seriously, it's possible. I still haven't "done it", and I'm 20 now. I plan on not doing it until I marry. And I won't, because that is one of my convictions.
are you engaged NOW to a woman you are passionately in love with? its harder than you might think to keep "pure" when you are in love.

and are you counting all forms of sex as "doing it"? anything that leads you to orgasm with another person counts as sex even if penis never gets near vagina.

in any case, you may well be one of those people who can hold out until marriage. good for you.

abstinence is a decision you can make for yourself but you cant make for others. its fine for you, its fine for someone else who makes the same decision but you cant tell someone else what to do in their most private moments. they will do as they please.

If anyone can resist having sex for 5 seconds, then anyone can resist having sex for an eternity. Think of it as a chain of 5 second periods in which they do not have sex.

False analogy. If you can withstand 5 seconds of pain caused by 80C temperature surfaces, you can withstand 10 seconds. And if you can withstand 10 seconds, anyone can withstand an eternity of being broiled.

You came up with that idea, you demonstrate using my scenario. When you can do it, come back and talk.

Can you name someone who can resist eating for five seconds? 5 mins? Half an hour? A day? A week? A year? A lifetime? Just think of it as a series of 5 second periods where they don't eat.

See, how ridiculous your little example is? Just because you can resist something for a shorter while, does not mean that you can, or that you will, do so for longer.

Good point. So I suppose the basic question is, is lack of sexual activity a cululative effect, like hunger and sleep, or a noncumulative effect?

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work

Simple. While we may find sexual promiscuity immoral, distasteful, or moderately self-destructive, we value personal autonomy enough to let people make their own decisions.

Moreover, any restrictions that have any chance of success are likely to burden the rest of us as much or more than the people targeted by the regulation. Monogamous couples use birth control just as much sexually frivolous individuals.

Because the job of a democracy is to do what the public want. As far as I can see the public oppose promiscuity (hence the social reaction) so why is it so bad to impose regulations that make it harder.

You're right, it is the job of democracy to do what the public wants. However, your conclusion is a non sequitur, since you said yourself in your first post that people do not want politicians to address promiscuity as a matter of public law.

If people have decided to sanction promiscuity at all, clearly they have chosen social condemnation as their method. And surely a true democracy is free to select their method of "punishment," wouldn't you agree?

Name one then. It can have no constitution, nor work as a republic.

Since when did you get to define what counts as a "democracy"?

I happen to teach a course titled "Democratic Political Theory." For whatever it's worth, very few theorists of democratic politics would insist on any such restrictions.

It matters because kids who are abstinent aren't exactly accomplishers.

He's 18.


I've no idea why he is being so evasive about this, he put it in his public profile (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=951715) :confused:

I don't want to get into this. I knew that's what you meant ... that there are no "pure" democracies. I just thought it was a bit ... um ... disengenuous. :p

It is disingenuous, since the term "democracy" has rarely been used in this sense except by its opponents, who insist that to make politics "more democratic" is to tend toward "mob rule"--the technical term for which is "ochlocracy," which honest theorists regard as a degenerate form of democratic government.

(Besides which, I'm not sure what this person means by a state having "no constitution." Perhaps some prejudice that mistakenly believes that a state without a written constitution must have none at all?)

People look down on people who sleep around without a care at all.

Yeah... mostly because they're jealous. ;)

Death seems like a steep price to pay for sleeping around. :p

Exactly.

If the threat of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases does so little to curb sexual promiscuity, why should we expect anything the government tries to do any better?

Of anything we have/can try, safe-sex education makes the most sense, for reasons already discussed by others.

And if anyone can do it, then everyone can do it.

Never a clearer fallacy have I seen!

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work
Exactly what it is you are hoping to accomplish here? Wipe out promiscuity?

First, define "promiscuity." How much sex is too much sex?

Next, tell me how banning/restricting birth control stops people from having sex. There are plenty of poor countries and isolated traditional cultures (such as in Africa, South America and the Pacific) that don't use contraceptives, and they have just as much sex as most Americans and Europeans do. They even have their own home-grown erotica because they like thinking about sex even when they're not doing it. But no condoms or morning after pills. Go figure. So obviously, lack of contraceptives does not stop people from having sex. So if you are trying to get rid of promiscuity, this is not going to do it.

What will you try next in order to make sure nobody has sex more frequently than you allow?

Why is it in our society that sex is seen as an evil and dirty thing? And why is it suddenly ok if you are in love? Love, as opposed to lust seems to be part of the problem. Teenage girls think they are in love all the time. And we constantly tell them sex should be reserved for someone they love. so they have sex. and sometimes they get pregnant or diseased or just emotionally messed up.

Perhaps if we saw sex for what it is - fun, free, and provided your'e careful, safe, then this might not happen. Love is a wonderful thing, when its real, but at the age most people start having sex they know nothing about love beyond what they see in Britney spears videos and teen comedies.

If we could actually teach them about contraception and being safe then they could enjoy sex without the bad consequences and when they eventually genuinelly fall in love they would be ready to commit to that person.

And as for abstinence. WHY? AS I said before, sex is fun, and as long as you use a condom, it is safe. shoud people abstain from food, or sleep? no, then why sex? its just crazy.

People like sex yes, but not too much. IE sluts. Its a social thing. People look down on people who sleep around without a care at all.
Now you're telling me how often I enjoy getting laid? Maybe you'd like to tell me who I like to sleep with and what my favorite position is too.

You look down on people who don't live the way you want them to.

I look down on people who presume to know how others should live and presume to tell them so.

In their eyes, it's a very consistent set of positions. What really, really bothers me is those who oppose both birth control and abortion, and have the capability to adopt ... and don't. Now to me, that's true hypocrisy! To these people: If you're not willing to help with the results of your own idiocy, then STFU!
Me too. Excellent point, thanks.

He's 18.


I've no idea why he is being so evasive about this, he put it in his public profile (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=951715) :confused:

If he's too lazy to look it up... :p

Besides, my age really isn't the point, unless he honestly believes that no one has ever lived a full life without sex.

You can't measure how much people aren't having sex, so you cannot compare abstinence and safe sex.

Condoms, while highly effective, only need to fail once to practically ensure death in the case of HIV/AIDS. If you abstain from sex, don't share needles, and health organizations do their part to make sure that HIV isn't spread through blood transfusions, you will not get AIDS. Interestingly enough, you'll also help the overpopulation problem. :cool:
HIV/AIDS helps with the overpopulation problem, too, just like the Black Death did. Maybe we should leave overpopulation out of this conversation, eh?

HIV/AIDS helps with the overpopulation problem, too, just like the Black Death did. Maybe we should leave overpopulation out of this conversation, eh?

As you wish. It's OT anyways...

Maybe you'd like to tell me who I like to sleep with and what my favorite position is too.

Hmmm... does it involve a chair?

Then I'm a Leprechaun. I'd lead you to my crock of gold, but I'm abstinent ;)
So you're a myth, then? Thought so.

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work

Society will shun people for a number of reasons. Does that mean that the government should outlaw bad hygiene? Should there be a law against raising bratty kids? Or how about making unemployment illegal?

Or is that just you trying to find a way to force your views onto the rest of the population, really?

"Doable and realistic?"

Segregation in the USA was "doable and realistic", integration was "not".
Appeasement against Hitler was "doable and realistic", preventing him from invading a variety of countries was "not".
Feeding starving nations is "doable and realistic", controlling global population growth is "not".
Invading Iraq for oil, although no one dare say it, was the "doable and realistic" solution to the oil crisis. Alternative forms of energy and better fuel effeciency are "not".

"Doable and realistic" is a way of saying that you know what is best, but you don't want to try to do it, because it would actually require effort.

What condoms do is delay the inevitable. Eventually, when the problem reaches a breaking point, most people will finally realized that abstinence is a good idea. What I am trying to do is to get that point across before things get significantly worse.

Ashmoria, I hope you read this post as well. I don't want to have to type it all again... :p
What are you talking about?

Do we or do we not have integration now? Then obviously, it was "doable and realistic," in as much as we're really doing it.

Sadly, we'll never know if we could have prevented Hitler from invading countries because the allied powers chose not to try, but in as much as it was entirely "doable and realistic" to beat him in a war, it's possible we could have contained him before he started invading, if we'd wanted to.

I was not aware that there was any more concerted a program on to feed starving nations than there is to control global population growth. I hear constantly about how rich nations aren't doing enough to help poor nations. Who is doing all this feeding then?

And precisely what oil crisis was solved by invading Iraq?

Seriously, you're talking nonsense here, not least of which is that part about condoms only delaying the inevitable. Inevitable what? What problem? What breaking point? What point are you trying to get across before things get worse than what?

Are you suggesting that because I am not dead yet, I will fail to be abstinent sometime before I die?
Yes, if you intend to live as god wanted you to. God gave you a sex drive so that you would "be fruitful and multiply." Every time you get that antsy feeling, that's god telling you to get with the program. Refusal to comply is a rebellion against the will of god. You'd better do it at least once if you want any chance of getting into heaven.

I threw the list together in 30 seconds. The least you can do is take 30 seconds to point out the flaws instead of merely suggesting that they exist without providing evidence.





On of the primary reasons for the ineffeciency of abstinence is people giving up because people tell them that is "impossible."

It is possible, but it rarely works if you don't think it will work. It is called confidence in your own free will. No one is a slave to their sexuality.
No, the primary reason abstinence is inefficient is because it's bad for society. It warps human nature; turns people into liars about themselves, their thoughts, feelings and actions; and holds out an unnatural and abnormal behavior as a standard for normalcy, thus setting up every human to be branded a failure, which in turn encourages depression and rage in those humans. Also, as a kicker, it's bad for the survival of the species.

I put it to you that a person who feels they can never, ever allow themselves to have sex without becoming promiscuous is a slave to their sexuality -- or to their fear of their own sexuality.

If you wanna be abstinent, more power to ya. But you should know that the availability of condoms and the morning after pill do not encourage promiscuity. With out them, people would just use much less effective forms of birth contol, like "pulling out" or natural family planning, which (as I understand it) is only effective if the woman menstruates regularly.

A bigger problem with not allowing contraceptives is abortion. The people who I know who confided to having had an abortion did so only after having unprotected sex.

So if you don't wanna have sex, don't. That's your choice. But if you do, Wrap It Up!

<snip>
Currently, I plan on being a Catholic Priest, so never.

That's no guarantee. Don't you keep up with the news?

Hmmm... does it involve a chair?
None of your business, saucy boy. ;)

If you wanna be abstinent, more power to ya. But you should know that the availability of condoms and the morning after pill do not encourage promiscuity. With out them, people would just use much less effective forms of birth contol, like "pulling out" or natural family planning, which (as I understand it) is only effective if the woman menstruates regularly.

A bigger problem with not allowing contraceptives is abortion. The people who I know who confided to having had an abortion did so only after having unprotected sex.

So if you don't wanna have sex, don't. That's your choice. But if you do, Wrap It Up!
We all know that's not trustworthy. Ovulation is not clockwork. The woman's cycle may vary but not enough to affect her period. In fact, doctors have told me that a woman may even get pregnant during her period -- it's extremely rare, but possible, if an egg is still hanging out in her fallopian tube and a sperm makes it through the menstrual housecleaning. That's right, boys, the condom is your friend. Use it always.

Are you intentionally ignoring Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere? Abstinence is "workable" for the women there;; the West isn't the only place with a cultural background of abstinence, as you put it.

I think the point here is that it is POSSIBLE to be abstinent. Certainly trying to force others to be abstinent will not stop promiscuous sex, or sex in any circumstances, but some people can and will remain abstinent until marriage or otherwise.
Someone has already pointed out that keeping women under house arrest and beating or killing them any time you think an unauthorized man might have talked to them is not a system that is "workable" for women. But leaving the Taliban and other fundamentalist extremists aside --

I notice that you only cite abstinence as working for women. Are the men not required to keep their pants zipped? Are you playing to the school of thought that says women are responsible for limiting sex which they fail to do because they are sluts and they are sluts because they are inferior beings seduced into original sin by the devil and that's why the law has to control them?

BTW, the Muslims I know are always bragging about how much more free they are about sex than Christians. They're always telling me how their culture encourages sexuality, guarantees both men and women the right to sexual happiness in marriage, that lack of good sex is grounds for a woman to divorce her husband, etc. They also enjoy showing off their culture's sexually explicit art and poetry. That's because Islam doesn't allow sex outside of marriage, but it encourages it -- and how! -- within marriage.

The pro-abstinence people in this thread are talking as if there are only two extremes -- promiscuity or abstinence -- with nothing in between. That's weird. I notice that none of you has yet defined "promiscuity."

That's no guarantee. Don't you keep up with the news?

You snipped the part you should have read. I DO NOT TOLERATE people who talk negatively about my religion without reason in any sense other than a debate.

What are you talking about?

Do we or do we not have integration now? Then obviously, it was "doable and realistic," in as much as we're really doing it.

Sadly, we'll never know if we could have prevented Hitler from invading countries because the allied powers chose not to try, but in as much as it was entirely "doable and realistic" to beat him in a war, it's possible we could have contained him before he started invading, if we'd wanted to.

I was not aware that there was any more concerted a program on to feed starving nations than there is to control global population growth. I hear constantly about how rich nations aren't doing enough to help poor nations. Who is doing all this feeding then?

And precisely what oil crisis was solved by invading Iraq?

Seriously, you're talking nonsense here, not least of which is that part about condoms only delaying the inevitable. Inevitable what? What problem? What breaking point? What point are you trying to get across before things get worse than what?

My point is that, while all those things seemed to be the "doable and realistic things", they were in fact very bad ideas.

The inevitable is the spread of STDs due to increased promiscuity. The problem is the spread of STDs due to increased promiscuity, and the breaking point is the point at which people will finally realize "hey, maybe all this increased promiscuity is a bad thing, because of all these STDs we have now".

The point I am trying to get across before things reach that stage is that abstinence is important, i.e. abstaining from sex before marriage and abstaining from sex with people other than your partner during marriage.

You snipped the part you should have read. I DO NOT TOLERATE people who talk negatively about my religion without reason in any sense other than a debate.
Tough shit, deal with it. This is a public forum.

Tough shit, deal with it. This is a public forum.

Then they'll have to deal with my shit. After all, it's a public forum

Yes, if you intend to live as god wanted you to. God gave you a sex drive so that you would "be fruitful and multiply." Every time you get that antsy feeling, that's god telling you to get with the program. Refusal to comply is a rebellion against the will of god. You'd better do it at least once if you want any chance of getting into heaven.


I'd love to talk with you about that, but it's rather off topic in this thread, so I would appreciate it if ether you make a new topic specifically focusing on personal perpetual abstinence, or TG me and we can talk about it that way.

Because unwanted pregnancies are a greater problem than promiscuity.

Oddly enough, most of the people who are against birth control are against abortion. Bit of hypocrisy there too.
Not really. They believe birth control is preventing the creation of life, which they see as a wrong. (I am in agreeance with them). Birth control allows you to have sex without consequences. If we allow unlimited rights with no responsiblities, we shall collapse.

I'm abstinent ;)
That's your problem. Fortunately, bigotry has little place on most civilized nations :rolleyes:

Not really. They believe birth control is preventing the creation of life, which they see as a wrong. (I am in agreeance with them). Birth control allows you to have sex without consequences. If we allow unlimited rights with no responsiblities, we shall collapse.
I do fall down sometimes. I really had no idea that it was because my girlfriend is on birth control.

Birth control allows you to have sex without consequences.

There are plenty of consequences, just not the one you want.

Inoculations and vaccines allow one to travel to the tropics without the consequence of coming home with a deadly disease. Should we do away with them as well, because they allow us to do something "without consequences"?

If we allow unlimited rights with no responsiblities, we shall collapse.

Is this supposed to be some form of slippery slope argument? That if we allow people to have sex without the responsibility of caring for children (there are still plenty of responsibilities, such as using protection), then suddenly (for no apparent reason) we will allow people "unlimited" rights with "no" responsibility?

If that's your argument, it is absurd. If not, then I'm confused.

Fortunately, bigotry has little place on most civilized nations :rolleyes:

In the USA, it's the only way to make a living :p

Is this supposed to be some form of slippery slope argument? That if we allow people to have sex without the responsibility of caring for children (there are still plenty of responsibilities, such as using protection), then suddenly (for no apparent reason) we will allow people "unlimited" rights with "no" responsibility?

If that's your argument, it is absurd. If not, then I'm confused.
I think what he's saying is that we've already shown such great care for the millions upon millions of orphans in the world that we should take no measure to prevent producing millions upon millions more.

My point is
As a matter of interest (and for future reference) previously you did not make this point but rather left people to guess at it. In fact you even expected another poster to argue it for you in order to then argue against it. If you wish to argue by analogy then you need to 'connect' the analogous example to thing you are claiming it is analogous to...until you have done that, (unless it is an obvious connection that no one choses to challenge) you actually have not argued anything.

that, while all those things seemed to be the "doable and realistic things", they were in fact very bad ideas.
So you are arguing by analogy - the similarity between your analogous examples and the issue at hand is that people have claimed each to be 'doable and realistic'. In the cases of your examples the 'doable and realistic thing turned out to be 'very bad ideas'. This is a very silly and weak argument because there are many many many (etc) things that were believed to be doable and realistic and turned out to be very good ideas.

The inevitable is the spread of STDs due to increased promiscuity.
There is no proof that it is inevitable given increased promiscuity, nor is there any demonstratable reason why we should infer increased promiscuity.

The problem is the spread of STDs due to increased promiscuity, and the breaking point is the point at which people will finally realize "hey, maybe all this increased promiscuity is a bad thing, because of all these STDs we have now".
The problem is you have not established that there will be an increase in promiscuity, or that if there were an increase in promiscuity that this would cause the spread of STDS. Furthermore, even given the earlier premises, your conclusion that people will finally realise 'hey maybe all this increased promiscuity is a bad thing, because of all these STDs we have now' does not necessarily follow. Even if it did, so what of it? If all you said were true it still would not necessarily follow that people would stop having sex or lessen their amount of sex or sex partners to any significant degree.

The point I am trying to get across before things reach that stage is that abstinence is important, i.e. abstaining from sex before marriage and abstaining from sex with people other than your partner during marriage.
You have not gotten that point across. The majority (if not all) of your premises are unsubstantiated and even if they were all true your conclusions do not necessarily follow from them. Your analogies are weak (negliable even) and your inductive arguments unsound.

Not really. They believe birth control is preventing the creation of life, which they see as a wrong. (I am in agreeance with them). Birth control allows you to have sex without consequences. If we allow unlimited rights with no responsiblities, we shall collapse.

Have you totally lost it? If we allow unlimited rights with no responsibilities we may indeed collapse, for that would be anarchy. But birth control merely allows people to participate in a fun activity without most of the risks. Would you do away with seat belts to stop people driving too much?

Sex is not dirty, it is just fun in its purest sense. Its funny how those who promote abstinence seem to want to totally fuck everyone who disagrees.

You snipped the part you should have read. I DO NOT TOLERATE people who talk negatively about my religion without reason in any sense other than a debate.



My point is that, while all those things seemed to be the "doable and realistic things", they were in fact very bad ideas.

The inevitable is the spread of STDs due to increased promiscuity. The problem is the spread of STDs due to increased promiscuity, and the breaking point is the point at which people will finally realize "hey, maybe all this increased promiscuity is a bad thing, because of all these STDs we have now".

The point I am trying to get across before things reach that stage is that abstinence is important, i.e. abstaining from sex before marriage and abstaining from sex with people other than your partner during marriage.
I did read the rest of it. Fass had already made the same points in response that I would have made, so I didn't repeat him. I just picked out that one bit because it struck me that it is yet another instance in which you seem to think you can divorce yourself from your sex drive. Being a Catholic priest is not going to solve that for you, as evidenced by all the priests out there involved in sex scandals of various kinds. And what will you do if, after you become a priest, the Vatican decides to rescind the celibacy rule? What if the next Pope decides that the celibacy rule attracts people who have severe psychological problems with sex and the best way to get mentally healthy people into the priesthood is to let them marry like in the Orthodox church? My point is the priesthood is not a guaranteed refuge from sex.

As to your other point, it's a shame you tried to make that point with such nonsensical remarks. Segregation has been replaced with integration, so it seems both were entirely doable. Hitler was defeated eventually, thus that was also doable, as soon as the desire to do it kicked in. Overpopulation and hunger are both proceeding apace -- hand in hand, actually -- so your comparison that one is being addressed and the other isn't is false. Also, how does blocking access to contraception lead to lowering of the population? And invading Iraq was a horrible idea, but it had nothing to do with an oil crisis, so that statement meant nothing at all.

And there's one glaring fault in your notion about STDs spreading because of increased promiscuity -- it's the word "increased." Epidemic spread of STDs is not recent. Diseases like syphillis have been around for 1000s of years and, thanks to both medicine and condoms, are nowhere near as prevalent or dangerous now as they were in earlier generations. It's true that in some places STDs are on the rise again, but they are nowhere near where they were even 100 years ago. In fact, I suggest that if they are rising, it's not because people are having more sex. I think people are having the same amount of sex but with less sex education and less access to proper contraceptive protections, which also tend to limit the spread of diseases.

EDIT: I'm sorry, there's also a problem with the word "promiscuity." You have yet to define it.

I'd love to talk with you about that, but it's rather off topic in this thread, so I would appreciate it if ether you make a new topic specifically focusing on personal perpetual abstinence, or TG me and we can talk about it that way.
Oh, I see, you intend to maintain your vow of abstinence by engaging in cybersex? I call that cheating, but then I'm a stickler for rules. Or perhaps I misunderstand you. Are you really saying that you don't intend to avoid sex your whole life, despite your statements otherwise?

There are plenty of consequences, just not the one you want.

Inoculations and vaccines allow one to travel to the tropics without the consequence of coming home with a deadly disease. Should we do away with them as well, because they allow us to do something "without consequences"?



Is this supposed to be some form of slippery slope argument? That if we allow people to have sex without the responsibility of caring for children (there are still plenty of responsibilities, such as using protection), then suddenly (for no apparent reason) we will allow people "unlimited" rights with "no" responsibility?

If that's your argument, it is absurd. If not, then I'm confused.
Well, you know what they say:

"If you allow a man to indulge himself once in murder, he will soon come to think nothing of robbery, forgery, and giving false witness, and finally he will end with sabbath-breaking and procrastination."

;)

Oh, I see, you intend to maintain your vow of abstinence by engaging in cybersex? I call that cheating, but then I'm a stickler for rules. Or perhaps I misunderstand you. Are you really saying that you don't intend to avoid sex your whole life, despite your statements otherwise?

I don't think there has been a bigger misunderstanding in all time.

The thread I mentioned creating about personal perpetual abstinence is one designed to discuss it:

Personal- pertaining to a single individual
Perpetual- never ceasing
Abstinence- refraining from sex

which is pretty much the opposite of cybersex (which isn't allowed on these forums).

And as far as a TG goes, I hope you realize that that stands for telegram, the personal communication system of nationstates. If you choose to TG me about it, we'd discuss personal perpetual abstinence (which is what I intend to practice) in telegrams.

I don't think there has been a bigger misunderstanding in all time.

The thread I mentioned creating about personal perpetual abstinence is one designed to discuss it:

Personal- pertaining to a single individual
Perpetual- never ceasing
Abstinence- refraining from sex

which is pretty much the opposite of cybersex (which isn't allowed on these forums).

And as far as a TG goes, I hope you realize that that stands for telegram, the personal communication system of nationstates. If you choose to TG me about it, we'd discuss personal perpetual abstinence (which is what I intend to practice) in telegrams.
I know what TG stands for, and why in hell would I want to talk to you personally about you not having sex? It's the ultimate non-topic. There's nothing to discuss.

GM to M: "I'm not having sex."

M to GM: "Good. Keep up with that."

Personal conversation exhausted.

Now if you want to have a conversation about why you think abstinence is a great idea for everyone in the world and why I think you're wrong, then that's what we're doing, right here in this thread.

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally. However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system workThe difference is between having an opinion about someone's certain behavior and forcing your own lifestyle on someone.

The difference is between having an opinion about someone's certain behavior and forcing your own lifestyle on someone.

And how come its always the more conservative types that want to force their lifestyles on everyone? Its always less of everything, never more. Why can't we all have a little more fun?

So, you wouldn't mind if you developed HIV/AIDS because most people became freely promiscuous and HIV/AIDS spread worldwide?

Keep in mind that condoms, while highly effective, only need to fail once to practically ensure death in the case of HIV/AIDS...

Condoms don't need to fail once, they need to fail once while you're having sex with someone with AIDS.

Well, you know what they say:

"If you allow a man to indulge himself once in murder, he will soon come to think nothing of robbery, forgery, and giving false witness, and finally he will end with sabbath-breaking and procrastination."

;)
did you write that yourself? its brilliant

i wish i needed a steenking signature, id use that!

And how come its always the more conservative types that want to force their lifestyles on everyone? Its always less of everything, never more. Why can't we all have a little more fun?

Probably because we then would all die of STDs.... if we don't drown in the sheer number of unwanted babies before.

if we don't drown in the sheer number of unwanted babies before.

Erm... don't babies have the same capacity for drowning people, wanted or otherwise? I mean, couldn't we also drown in wanted babies? Or maybe some would drown in wanted, and some would drown in unwanted...

Erm... don't babies have the same capacity for drowning people, wanted or otherwise? I mean, couldn't we also drown in wanted babies? Or maybe some would drown in wanted, and some would drown in unwanted...

Weren't you the one who pointed out earlier that not opposing promiscuity would lead to a drastic rise in unwanted pregnancies?

Weren't you the one who pointed out earlier that not opposing promiscuity would lead to a drastic rise in unwanted pregnancies?

Being the radical anti-abortion and anti contraceptivist that I am, I doubt I used the term "unwanted".

did you write that yourself? its brilliant

i wish i needed a steenking signature, id use that!
No, I'm not sure who said that. I thought it might have been Ben Franklin, but then I thought it wasn't, so I didn't attribute it.

Being the radical anti-abortion and anti contraceptivist that I am, I doubt I used the term "unwanted".
Well, at least you acknowledge that your ideas are radical, which is far more than some others will do.

Now will you also acknowledge that, by definition, radical ideas can never be mainstream ideas and that, therefore, the world at large will never adopt your way of thinking?

Being the radical anti-abortion and anti contraceptivist that I am, I doubt I used the term "unwanted".
because as long as YOU want a woman to have more babies than is good for her family, it doesnt matter that SHE doesnt want another?

Birth control allows you to have sex without consequences. If we allow unlimited rights with no responsiblities, we shall collapse.
I don't see anything dangerous about ensuring that sex has no consequences, if one wants it, that is. It's not harmful to society or placing a burden on anyone else.

because as long as YOU want a woman to have more babies than is good for her family, it doesnt matter that SHE doesnt want another?
You're missing his point. Grand Maritoll thinks that because he has decided he can live without sex, everybody in the world should also decide to live without sex (because, you know, he's such an example to emulate). They should only have sex for making babies, and if they don't want a baby, they shouldn't have sex. He skips over the thousands of ways this plan can go wrong, just like he skips over the fact that people have an urge for sex for a damned good reason, which is why the general population will never agree with him, never do what he wants -- and in fact why it won't be as easy for him to stick to his own personal plans as he thinks it's going to be.

Really, that's what annoys me most about his arguments here -- this absurd idea that people can just give up on sex and that it's easy once you set your mind to it. If that were the case, wouldn't there be more than 7 Shakers in the world -- or are they down to 3 now?

It seems there is a politcal and social hypocracy in the attitudes of the western world towards promiscuity. On a social level if a woman or man is promiscuious his or her friends will consider them 'easy' or a 'slut' as well as any other number of negative conotations (I am aware that its more negative for a woman than a man, but thats not what I am discussing). So on a social level, to sleep around is considered negative, generally.
I don't consider it negative, nor do many people, except of course there are some men who still consider it negative for women to do so while they spread their wild oats far and wide.

However on a political level, if any measures are undertaken to discourage promiscuity (restricting morning after pill & other contreceptives, opposing abortion etc) people dont like it. How does this opinion system work
lol
I fail to see how abortions are only used by promiscuous women, I think it was somewhere around 50% of abortions that were performed on married women. Contraceptives and the morning after pill aren't used exclusively by promiscuous women either. Married women still aren't baby-machines, you know.

Okay, neocon scum, that's IT. Too much bullshit you spewed, now you'll answer to ME.

About your idea of outlawing "promiscuity". This concept is Christian, to begin with. I don't give a fuck what the majority wants, it CANNOT INTRUDE THE BEDROOM OF PEOPLE BASED ON ITS FAITH. Period. That's unethical, immoral and unacceptable. For that matter, you've seen what your "abstinence" people are doing in Africa. THEY are spreading AIDS when they deny people condoms. If you want to be abstinent, fine, but thumping this on others is WRONG. PERIOD, IT COULD BE THE OPTION OF 99% OF THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, AND IT'D STILL BE UTTERLY WRONG TO FORCE THE REMAINING 1%. Are the people that sleep around killing kittens? No. Are they raping anyone? No. Are they causing harm to ANYONE AT ALL? No. Re-read this point enough times to get it through your thick little heads in case you want to invoke the "people also think theft is wrong" line.

Being against contraceptives and against abortion is just a nice way to say you'd like women to get back to that nice 1800's status of them, back when they were prisoners to their bodies and, in case of rape, it was "too fucking bad, you slut, shoulda thought of that, now you'll have the baby and be bound to it as long as it lives". It's not about saving babies. It's about controlling women. If you really wanted to save babies you'd adopt, you'd support welfare programs, you'd even take some time off your busy schedule of sleeping, eating, and spouting bull, and go to a shelter or a daycare center and volunteer there. So, don't act like you give a fuck about the babies. You do not. Get it through your thick skulls and into your unused brain: Trying to control other people based on your faith is WRONG. That's what the Taliban did. Are you one of them? No? Then stop acting the part. And do re-read the previous lines in case you want to go the "but abortion/contraception is murder" route. Not only it isn't, but, also, if you cared about it, you'd, at the very least, send money to Africa, where children are dying of AIDS BECAUSE of your abstinence-only ideas. They are killing, aren't they? Yet you support them. It's not, and I repeat to drive home the point, NOT about the babies. It's about control. It's about how you want the government to cater to your neocon whims of controlling another people, beginning by their sexualities. Forget about it. The world is more evolved than this, by much.

Sex is good, sex is great, yay sex! :) I dont discourage promiscuity, nuh-uh, not one bit .. :)

Okay, neocon scum, that's IT. Too much bullshit you spewed, now you'll answer to ME.

And what authority are you?


About your idea of outlawing "promiscuity".

I never said anything about outlawing promiscutiy. I said about dicourging it. For the record I have no problem with preventative contreception. Its reactive contreception I have issue with


This concept is Christian, to begin with

Since when is the idea of having sex with several people in a reletively short space of time a Christian concept


I don't give a fuck what the majority wants, it CANNOT INTRUDE THE BEDROOM OF PEOPLE BASED ON ITS FAITH. Period. That's unethical, immoral and unacceptable

I didnt say it should. If you had read my post instead of getting angry, I said promiscuity should be discourged by making access to reactive contreception harder.


For that matter, you've seen what your "abstinence" people are doing in Africa. THEY are spreading AIDS when they deny people condoms.

Actually AIDS in many parts of Africa is going down.

Regular measurement of HIV prevalence amongst groups of young people can give an indication of the HIV incidence amongst them, that is, the number of new infections occurring. The steadily dropping HIV prevalence over the last few years, among 15-19 year olds in Uganda, provide a more accurate picture of the trend in the epidemic in Uganda, and in this instance the effectiveness of prevention efforts among young people.

But for the record, I dont support absinence only sex education.


If you want to be abstinent, fine, but thumping this on others is WRONG. PERIOD, IT COULD BE THE OPTION OF 99% OF THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, AND IT'D STILL BE UTTERLY WRONG TO FORCE THE REMAINING 1%. Are the people that sleep around killing kittens? No. Are they raping anyone? No. Are they causing harm to ANYONE AT ALL? No. Re-read this point enough times to get it through your thick little heads in case you want to invoke the "people also think theft is wrong" line.

See above to my opinion on absience

But to elaborate on the flawed nature of your arguement, theft does not harm anyone. Speeking from a strictly humanistic point of view the Occiedental mindset over the last 2000 years has simply come to an understanding that steeling is wrong. However there are many ways in which a culture could be arranged where there is a very diffrent concept of property than which we have now.


Being against contraceptives and against abortion is just a nice way to say you'd like women to get back to that nice 1800's status of them, back when they were prisoners to their bodies and, in case of rape, it was "too fucking bad, you slut, shoulda thought of that, now you'll have the baby and be bound to it as long as it lives".

Again, for the record. I oppose only reactive contreceptions and abortion. I dont oppose preventative contreceptions. And I accept the rape exception in the case of abortion.


It's not about saving babies. It's about controlling women. If you really wanted to save babies you'd adopt, you'd support welfare programs, you'd even take some time off your busy schedule of sleeping, eating, and spouting bull, and go to a shelter or a daycare center and volunteer there. So, don't act like you give a fuck about the babies. You do not

You've made a massive string of assumptions about what I believe. Now your making assumptions about what I do. Kindly do not. You dont know me, you dont know who I am. You dont know if I do volenteer at shelters or anywhere else. You dont know who I give money to or what I do with my time. So dont assume for one minute you can accuse me of any of these things you do.


Get it through your thick skulls and into your unused brain: Trying to control other people based on your faith is WRONG.

I didnt say trying to control. I said trying to discoruage. And its not just my faith thankyou. Its a sociological perspective.


And do re-read the previous lines in case you want to go the "but abortion/contraception is murder" route. Not only it isn't.

You'd have to go a very long way to prove that. Most people I have spoken to who believe that have failed to do so.


but, also, if you cared about it, you'd, at the very least, send money to Africa, where children are dying of AIDS BECAUSE of your abstinence-only ideas. They are killing, aren't they? Yet you support them

Again, assumptions about what I do and believe. Please stop assuming


It's not, and I repeat to drive home the point, NOT about the babies. It's about control. It's about how you want the government to cater to your neocon whims of controlling another people, beginning by their sexualities. Forget about it. The world is more evolved than this, by much.

Thats your view. Frankly thats all you've produced in this long rant. Your point of view and your assumptions. With no proof or logic to it.

<snip>
I never said anything about outlawing promiscutiy. I said about dicourging it. For the record I have no problem with preventative contreception. Its reactive contreception I have issue with
Oh really? Is that why, earlier in this thread, you stated that it is government's job to enforce social rules? If you want me to find the specific quote, I will (and I think you know I will, if you ask me to).

Since when is the idea of having sex with several people in a reletively short space of time a Christian concept
Cute misrepresentation of your opponent's statement. The poster was actually saying that the idea of "promiscuity" as a negative condition is a Christian concept. Inasmuch as many other religions contain no such concept, and inasmuch as Christians are the ones trying to impose rules against it in the US, I think this is a valid criticism. But at least, it got you to finally define "promiscuity" -- though I must say, it's a rather anti-climactic definition. Doesn't seem like it's worth so much trouble. BTW, you still haven't told us how many is too many? Put a number to that "several", please, and a length to that "short space of time."

I didnt say it should. If you had read my post instead of getting angry, I said promiscuity should be discourged by making access to reactive contreception harder.
Really? Then you've been putting the cart before the horse in the rest of this thread, because you and your cohorts have been arguing contraceptives should be banned or restricted FIRST in order to get "promiscuity" to go away. Now, you're saying the opposite? Or are you saying that you want to ban one kind of contraceptive in order to ban another kind of contraceptive? But we have already established that banning contraceptives is not proven to stop people from having sex, so how will setting people up to get pregnant lead to them NOT seek the morning-after pill? Obviously, if you ban contraceptives, then you've accomplished your goal of making them harder to get, but you haven't addressed so-called promiscuity at all. Seriously, Adriatica, you need to keep track of your arguments. I can't be everywhere for you.

Actually AIDS in many parts of Africa is going down.
Facts and numbers, please.

But to elaborate on the flawed nature of your arguement, theft does not harm anyone. Speeking from a strictly humanistic point of view the Occiedental mindset over the last 2000 years has simply come to an understanding that steeling is wrong. However there are many ways in which a culture could be arranged where there is a very diffrent concept of property than which we have now.
You say stealing doesn't hurt anyone, but people who own or insure property say it does. Sounds like just another war of opinions. Just like your opinion over whether other people should be allowed to live as they please or be forced to conform to your religion -- which coincidentally(?) is another idea that has been developed in the Occidental mindset over the last 2000 years.

Again, for the record. I oppose only reactive contreceptions and abortion. I dont oppose preventative contreceptions. And I accept the rape exception in the case of abortion.
Crap -- I can't search through old threads or I'd be able to post a link to where I proved you were lying when you said that about rape exceptions. Damn. How can I get my hands on that thing...

You've made a massive string of assumptions about what I believe. Now your making assumptions about what I do. Kindly do not. You dont know me, you dont know who I am. You dont know if I do volenteer at shelters or anywhere else. You dont know who I give money to or what I do with my time. So dont assume for one minute you can accuse me of any of these things you do.
Another misrepresentation of the poster's statements. Nothing in that post was directed to you personally, and the criticisms are valid for the main body of your anti-choice religious movement. If you are making another attempt to disassociate yourself from your own movement, then these statements shouldn't bother you at all.

I didnt say trying to control. I said trying to discoruage. And its not just my faith thankyou. Its a sociological perspective.
See my remark above about putting carts before horses. Oh, and yes, it is just your faith, in the sense that it is your religious faith at work here AND in the sense that it is your religious faith and not ours.

You'd have to go a very long way to prove that. Most people I have spoken to who believe that have failed to do so.
You're not going to quote that gerontologist again, are you? Feh, I'll leave this one to Dempublicents.

Thats your view. Frankly thats all you've produced in this long rant. Your point of view and your assumptions. With no proof or logic to it.
Praise from the master.

Because the job of a democracy is to do what the public want. As far as I can see the public oppose promiscuity (hence the social reaction) so why is it so bad to impose regulations that make it harder.
Thank god the US is not a pure democracy (not sure where you are from)

We have a framework to protect the rights of everyone against even the will of the majority.

Rights should not be determined by a popularity contest

Thank god the US is not a pure democracy (not sure where you are from)

We have a framework to protect the rights of everyone against even the will of the majority.

Rights should not be determined by a popularity contest
Thank you. :)

Now could I possibly ask how to find the old "rape exception" thread? I don't know if it's my browser or what, but I can't use my thread tools to search for it.

Thank you. :)

Now could I possibly ask how to find the old "rape exception" thread? I don't know if it's my browser or what, but I can't use my thread tools to search for it.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472071

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472071
YOU'RE THE BEST!! :fluffle:


Okay, Adriatica, here it is, and please see especially my posts # 326 and 327:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10583287&postcount=326

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10583380&postcount=327

YOU'RE THE BEST!! :fluffle:


Okay, Adriatica, here it is, and please see especially my posts # 326 and 327:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10583287&postcount=326

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10583380&postcount=327
Wow thoes are some intese reply lol

Keep in mind that condoms, while highly effective, only need to fail once to practically ensure death in the case of HIV/AIDS...
Keep in mind that seatbelts, while highly effective, only need to fail once to practically ensure death in the case of accidents...
Birth control allows you to have sex without consequences. If we allow unlimited rights with no responsiblities, we shall collapse.Seatbelts allow you to drive with limited consequences. How practical is the idea of getting rid of seatbelts to get people to drive less because it will be more dangerous?

Wow thoes are some intese reply lol
I had fun with them. :D

Perhaps this all comes down to differing views of sex.

Some think of sex as a dirty horrible thing that should only be suffered through to produce children.

Others see sex as a wonderful pleasurable experience that adds to the richness of life and should be enjoyed.

I think sex is fun. I really enjoy it. I have 4 regular partners right now and am always happy to find someone new. I have never had a sexually transmitted disease, never gotten a woman pregnant, and have never had any ill effects, be it emotionally or physically, whatsoever from having sex (actually that isn’t completely true, at times I’ve come away with scratches and bite marks :D ).

Despite what you’ve been told in church, there is nothing wrong with sex.
Yes, there is a risk of STDs, but if you are careful about being safe, the risk is minimal. Likewise there is a risk of pregnancy, but with contraception that risk is likewise minimal. Get your sexual education from somewhere other than your church or a Kansas school board.

BTW, anybody know the statistics on altar boys getting molested by Catholic priests?

Sex is natural. Our bodies are built to enjoy it.
Why should I be forced to conform to your beliefs?

Promiscuity means different things to different people. Some think that means anyone that has sex out of marriage, while others put it at multiple partners in a day. Of course the majority of people in the country think that ‘promiscuity’ is bad, simply because the word has a negative connotation. Start asking with specific numbers and time frames and you will find that people do not all agree on where to draw the line.

Personally I find nothing wrong with consensual sex between adults. What I like to do in private is my business – not yours.

Additionally, it is not the number of partners you have; it is the selection of partners and how safe you are with them. It is much safer to have protected sex with a different person every night (all of whom you’ve been close friends with for at least a year) than it is to have sex only once in your life unprotected with some random stranger you picked up drunk on the sidewalk in the ghetto at 3am.

And to those that think we should regulate everything because people cannot make a decision for themselves: Eating fast food is not healthy, so we should ban all fast food. Spending too much time in the sun is unhealthy, so we should monitor and enforce quotas on getting sunlight. Not conforming to everything my church says is harmful so we will torture you until death or conversion… for your own good (yeah, I threw that last one in just for the Catholics).

Who here wants to bet that, were anyone ever to propose mandatory Beltane celebrations, the neocons would cry "Constitution"?

*Snipitty and cookies for ya*

I couldn't have said it better myself (And I can say stuff very well).

Perhaps this all comes down to differing views of sex.

Some think of sex as a dirty horrible thing that should only be suffered through to produce children.

Others see sex as a wonderful pleasurable experience that adds to the richness of life and should be enjoyed.

I think sex is fun. I really enjoy it. I have 4 regular partners right now and am always happy to find someone new. I have never had a sexually transmitted disease, never gotten a woman pregnant, and have never had any ill effects, be it emotionally or physically, whatsoever from having sex (actually that isn’t completely true, at times I’ve come away with scratches and bite marks :D ).

Despite what you’ve been told in church, there is nothing wrong with sex.
Yes, there is a risk of STDs, but if you are careful about being safe, the risk is minimal. Likewise there is a risk of pregnancy, but with contraception that risk is likewise minimal. Get your sexual education from somewhere other than your church or a Kansas school board.

BTW, anybody know the statistics on altar boys getting molested by Catholic priests?

Sex is natural. Our bodies are built to enjoy it.
Why should I be forced to conform to your beliefs?

Promiscuity means different things to different people. Some think that means anyone that has sex out of marriage, while others put it at multiple partners in a day. Of course the majority of people in the country think that ‘promiscuity’ is bad, simply because the word has a negative connotation. Start asking with specific numbers and time frames and you will find that people do not all agree on where to draw the line.

Personally I find nothing wrong with consensual sex between adults. What I like to do in private is my business – not yours.

Additionally, it is not the number of partners you have; it is the selection of partners and how safe you are with them. It is much safer to have protected sex with a different person every night (all of whom you’ve been close friends with for at least a year) than it is to have sex only once in your life unprotected with some random stranger you picked up drunk on the sidewalk in the ghetto at 3am.

And to those that think we should regulate everything because people cannot make a decision for themselves: Eating fast food is not healthy, so we should ban all fast food. Spending too much time in the sun is unhealthy, so we should monitor and enforce quotas on getting sunlight. Not conforming to everything my church says is harmful so we will torture you until death or conversion… for your own good (yeah, I threw that last one in just for the Catholics).

I'd just like to clear up several things about my position on this, and about the chruch's position (which since I am not Catholic, will not be as 'eugh, dirty sex' as you here say it is)

The Bible doesnt say sex is bad. On the contary it says sex is a brilliant great wonderful thing. If you've ever read the songs of soloman you will know that the Bible is hardly condeming of sex univerassly in the fashion you seem to believe. Also since God invented sex, I would say he is a fairly randy guy.

However, like all inventions, sex has a purpose and a place. And no, that purpose isnt just making babies. Sex in the Bible is built into the context of marriage. Thats what sex is. The ultimate expression of love between a man and a woman. God made sex as a part of marriage. Hence what Genesis 2:24 talks about "For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh". Now the question here is "for what reason" well the answer is that that is how it was in Eden. Eden was how human existance in its perfection was. Sin spoilt and changed it, but there are elements we can keep the same. Marriage was a gift to us.

So why is sex outside marriage bad? Why is promiscuity bad? Well in my view it devalues what sex is, which in turn devalues a great many other things. Obviously the fact that God wanted it is a good reason in itself, but for those who don't believe in God it isnt. The fact is that sex at its most perfect is for a man and a woman deeply in love.

So what happens when we take the love out of sex. Well we turn sex into little more than a physical experiance. A high. Something to be enjoyed. A pleasure. Something to be owned for a moment. Except that we dont own sex itself. So what do we own. We own the other person. And like it or not there is a deep connection in sex. Ultimately left to itself, sex without love leads to hedonism. Hedonism leads to decadance. Decadance is of its very nature bad. I'm not talking in individual cases here, I am refering to society as an overarching thing. Contary to Margeret Thatchers stated wisdom, soceity does exist.

Because most politicains are men, and men would be retarded to oppose promiscuity. You completly forgot about men when you wrote this...

So why is sex outside marriage bad? Why is promiscuity bad? Well in my view it devalues what sex is,

Would it be fair to describe your view as a sexual free market? Hence, when the supply is high (promiscuity, sex outside marriage), the value is lower and demand is lower.

I couldn't have said it better myself (And I can say stuff very well).
Thanks. It was my pleasure. :)

I'd just like to clear up several things about my position on this, and about the chruch's position (which since I am not Catholic, will not be as 'eugh, dirty sex' as you here say it is)

The Bible doesnt say sex is bad. On the contary it says sex is a brilliant great wonderful thing. If you've ever read the songs of soloman you will know that the Bible is hardly condeming of sex univerassly in the fashion you seem to believe. Also since God invented sex, I would say he is a fairly randy guy.

However, like all inventions, sex has a purpose and a place. And no, that purpose isnt just making babies.
But it is a purpose that is dictated by your religion, which is not my religion. Therefore, I decline to follow it.

Sex in the Bible is built into the context of marriage. Thats what sex is. The ultimate expression of love between a man and a woman. God made sex as a part of marriage. Hence what Genesis 2:24 talks about "For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh". Now the question here is "for what reason" well the answer is that that is how it was in Eden. Eden was how human existance in its perfection was. Sin spoilt and changed it, but there are elements we can keep the same. Marriage was a gift to us.
Once more so the back row can hear me: Not my religion. I don't care about your religion's ideas about marriage. I don't care what it says in Genesis. Eden is a myth I don't believe in. My religion (animism) does not believe in sin. I don't need gifts from your god. And I don't need rules from you.

So why is sex outside marriage bad? Why is promiscuity bad? Well in my view it devalues what sex is, which in turn devalues a great many other things. Obviously the fact that God wanted it is a good reason in itself, but for those who don't believe in God it isnt. The fact is that sex at its most perfect is for a man and a woman deeply in love.

Those are the key words to this post, this thread, your entire religious movement: "in your view," i.e. in your opinion. Nobody cares about your opinion of how other people should live. It would be fine if you were just shooting off your mouth, but you're not. You are advocating laws that will give your religion the power to dictate how I live. It will not be tolerated.

So what happens when we take the love out of sex. Well we turn sex into little more than a physical experiance. A high. Something to be enjoyed. A pleasure. Something to be owned for a moment. Except that we dont own sex itself. So what do we own. We own the other person. And like it or not there is a deep connection in sex. Ultimately left to itself, sex without love leads to hedonism. Hedonism leads to decadance. Decadance is of its very nature bad. I'm not talking in individual cases here, I am refering to society as an overarching thing. Contary to Margeret Thatchers stated wisdom, soceity does exist.
Okay, you threw me there for half a second with that Thatcher reference (Thatcher? What year is this? :confused: ) But anyway, we're right back at square one but with two new subjective words that you need to define: "hedonism" and "decadence." Precisely what do you mean by those? And while we're at it, precisely what do you mean by "promiscuity"? How much is too much? How often may we have sex in how long a period of time, precisely, daddy-dearest?

Because I'm telling you right now, I may decline to follow the rules of your god, but I refuse absolutely to waste one moment trying to figure out your vague, subjective, unmeasured standards.